Loading...
11-10-1993 - Minutes TC � . � �nfAGiA7r':.,'.'P:�7`;.a CITY OF ORANGE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Date of Meeting: November 10. 1993 ROLL CALL-PRESENT-CONIIvIISSIONERS: D.Yarger,J.Fortier,N.Hower„F. Sciana ABSENT -COMNIISSIONERS: B.Leming PRESENT -STAFF: B.Dennis,Lt.E. Tunstall,C. Glass,D. Allenbach,P.Then ABSENT -STAFF: B.Herrick I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 13, 1993 -APPROVE as published by Recording Secretary. MOTION: D. Yarger SECOND: 7. Fortier AYES: Unanimous II. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Request for the installation of additional red curb markings in front of 512 E. Katella Ave. Glenn Chitjian, General Manager Ozzie's Restaurant 512 E. Katella Ave. Orange, CA 92667 There was no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by motion APPROVE the request. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: N. Hower AYES: Unanimous CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - At the conclusion of the meeting of items listed on this agenda, members of the public may address the City Traffic Commission regarding items of interest to the public that are within the subject jurisdiction of the City Traffic Commission Nothing to report. IV. ADJUURNMENT - Chairrnan Yarger adjourned this session of the CTC to a Workstudy Session, held in Conference Room C of the Public Works Building for a discussion on a proposed policy on installing'speed humps' on city streets. V. RE-CONVENE WORKSTUDY SESSION Chairman Yarger re-convened the City Traffic Commission to a Workstudy Session for the discussion of a proposed policy on installing 'speed humps' on city streets. That discussion was as follows: Chuck Glass, Traf�ic En ig neer - The purpose of today's Work Study Session to go through and begin developing a policy and guidelines for the installation of speed humps. The reason we are doing this is that we anticipate that we are probably going to start getting requests on these and it would be better to have something go by before the requests start to occur. Let's go through the packet I have provided for you. First we have a report or a presentation that was done at a recent Transportation Symposium, this particular engineer works for a consultant and one of their consulting cities is Agura Hills, CA. The report basically provides background on what they have done, and their particular philosophy is not to put in real "high" humps but to lower the humps from what most cities are installing, namely 3 inches high. His findings are that 2 inches is too low and it doesn't really have too much affect, and that 2 1/2 inches also ' didn't have much of an effect. They found that at 2 3/4 inches high people were starting - to complain about the humps. So they have come up with 2 5/8 inches height for the humps. 2 �t CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 One of the first things we have to identify here, policy wise, is why or the purpose we would install these. There are 2 policies that I have identified one is to install them to help control speed and there are a few cities that are installing these devices to try to divert traf�ic; two separate issues. I believe our policy should be that we would only install them with the purpose of controlling or helping to control speed, and under no circumstances do we want to divert tra�c from one street onto another adjacent residential street. Please read this document at your leisure, what I'm looking for today is your input so we may prepare a more cohesive item to agendize for our 7anuary meeting. So the action today would really be to continue the item. The next page is an except from a local newspaper that shows some of the criteria established by the City of Mission Viejo. . . . They also give an indication of the dif�erence between a "bump: and a "hump", by picture. Bumps are what you see in a - parking lot while humps are a new device that is 3 inches high by 12 feet wide. Just this morning we received, from the City of Brea, a copy of their program and I haven't had a chance to put in into the matrix sheets we are working from yet. I envision our criteria will be quite similar to Brea's. The removal criteria is interesting because people petition to have these installed and after they are in not everybody like them and alot of agencies have had experience with making the installation and then having to remove them. These are not cheap; I'm going to suggest that one of our criteria be that we don't put them in with less than 3 humps. The idea being that a single or even 2 humps don't really achieve the results you are trying to get on a segment of street. With a minimum of 3 humps you can figure a minimum of$2,500 per hump. These are asphalt, and in that asphalt is the thermo-plastic chevrons. The humps are constructed and the chevrons are rolled right in. At this point in time I don't have a firm position of how these should be budgeted. Some cities budget a certain amount of money annually fo� these and vvhen it is a.11 used then there are no more �nstallations until the following year. Chairman Yar�,er - What about a neighborhood permit fee to get them put in? Has anyone investigated the possibility of using rubber, similar to railroad crossings? That way if a section deteriorates badly it could simply be removed and replaced without having to re-do the entire hump? Asphalt, during hot summer months the asphalt softens and if these humps are 2 5/S" I wonder what the distortion would be. Chuck Glass -I haven't seen anybody do the permit fee to get them put in, but I have seen them that if you want them out you have to go through the same petition and write a check for the removal. Once they are removed if you want them in again you don't get them again for a minimum of 5 years. (See City of Brea policy in your packet.) 3 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 Bernie Dennis, City Trai�'ic En ig neer-You put asphalt down at 375°, that's considered the optimum laying temperature, and although it's defined as a flexible pavement the elasticity does exist, but typically it will go back into shape pretty well. The problem with using the rubber, which is a good concept, is that unless they have a series of proto-types you get in our application, we would be working with a minimum of 4 different street widths and these have to go gutter-to-gutter; you can't leave gaps at the edges of the street or only do half a street width. Perhaps later on the technology will advance to a point where the rubber materials would be applicable to our needs. Chairman Yarger - If this becomes a public awareness and it gets known that tl�ese are available aren't we going to be inundated with all kinds of neighborhoods making these requests, and at $7,SQ0 per street you will see some unbelievable political maneuvers going on. Chuck Glass - That's exactly why we're trying to develop a set of criteria to head that off. Bernie Dennis - One of the things I should have mentioned is that the policy the CTC eventually recommends has to be pretty good. You know we thought we had a pretty good policy statement in regard to the Permit Parking situation, well that lasted right up through the 2nd request and it fell apart. There is a dif�erence in doing a Permit Parking program, sign wise, as opposed to making these installations at $7,500 a street ($2,500 per hump). There are 2 things we as staff, and you as the Commission cannot afford to let happen: • These can't be put in "willy-nilly". There is also a maintenance cost, these don't last any longer or less than the street, eventually they will have to be replaced. • These aren't a panacea, they can't be put in on an arterial street or we could have some very serious funding problems. Canyon View, someone calls and says, "they're going 100 MPH down Canyon View", so we have to be very careful I think so there won't be the implementation program established by the City Council and we have to make sure they understand it as well. Chairman Yarger - You know we can repeat that we are only a sounding board, I think the Council will do whatever they want to do, based on the amount of pressure put on them by fortunately or unfortunately by residents/voters. Bernie Dennis - If the CTC will give this it's best technical appraisal and it's best qualified opinion, regardless of politics, if we can't push that through the City Council and for whatever reason they elect to modify or not to adhere to the policy, they the CTC will have done it's jab. 4 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 Chairman Yar�er-With a city experiencing the financial situation as Orange is, the cost of these installations and it's maintenance would necessitate each one be very closely scrutinized. Commissioner Hower-Have you looked at having the work"contracted out"? Bernie Dennis - That is the contractor price. Chairman Yarger -What's the legal opinion? If someone is speeding down the street and hits one of these humps and looses control, especially if he's on a motorcycle, and fly's off or runs into someone else, what about the liability? Commissioner Sciarra - What about assessing the installation fee on to the neighborhood that is requesting them? - Bernie Dennis - We've got to get out of the assessment business, I feel guilty. It's good maybe that is so expensive because it warrants some very serious consideration before you do it. Review of proposed City of Orange specific criteria for speed hump installation continued in the following direction: 1. Minimum Criteria l�elative to Street Characteristics - The laundry list to see if the street mentioned in the request meets the requirements. Staff provided a list of potential criteria, as follows: (Tape transcription @ #16.76 for reference to speci�c comments made on each of these proposed criteria.) Minunum Street Segment Length Street Width #Travel Lanes Street Classification(to City's MPAH) Speed Limit Existing Prevailing Speed Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT's) Use on Transit or Truck Route Streets %of Street Grade Use in Alley's Street Location Grid Pattern Use in Proximity to Emergency Response Station(Police-Fire) S'I'OP Signs on Street Segment 5 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 Chairman Yar�er-What have we got back from our legal counsel? Chuck Glass-I haven't really gone to them yet for opinions yet, and the reason I haven't is that while these are new and are "experimental" some of them have been in place for some period of time and I haven't heard back, by the Traf�ic Engineering Society, that there has been major legal problems on any of them and I'm sure if there had been big lawsuit's we would have heard about them. Chairman Yar�er - I take it that each city looks to their own legal counsel and find out how much exposure they are willing to accept? Chuck Glass -Yes, and again before it would go do Council we would probably our legal counsel if they see any major problems with it and certainly that would be a consideration Council would require. Chairman Yar�er-Wouldn't that be their first question? Chuck Glass - Without a criteria set up the legal department can't really offer a good opinion. *Chairman Yarger - Don't you think the first request will come in that the humps be installed in proximity to all schools? Chuck Glass -Under the criteria I don't think schools will quality because I don't think by definition in the CVC (Calif. Vehicle Code), that a street where a school is one side and residences on the other necessarily qualifies as a residential district. 2. Minimum Criteria Regarding Petition Repuirements - The laundry list to see if a street mentioned in the request meets these requirements shown on the list provided by staf� The review of this list of criteria was as follows: (Tape transcription began at #32.92 fo� these criteria, for reference to speci�c comments made during this discussion.) Petition Requirements Request Response and Petition Preparation/Submittal Format (I�erify Addresses&Absentee Owners) Who Can Sign Petition? (Owner/Resident) Allowable Signatures Per Dwelling Unit(How do you handle multi-family units) Minimum Required Number of Signa.tures Who Determines Segment Limits,Zone or'All Streets Affected' Does Petition conta.in'Reasons or Basis for Request'Information Required Signa.ture Information: Printed Name, Signature,Address,Phone# Who Approves Petition Is There a Removal Procedure *Application Fee *Absolute Requirements of Approval of Adjacent Residences of Bump Placement 6 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 * Bernie Dennis- (Tape @#34.51)I'm getting tired of fees but I'm equally getting tired of people wandering in to the front counter and asking, "Will you go do this?" Spend $3,000 on a 3-week staff study to make this type of installation....... Chuck Glass - I agree, I see no problem with going to Council and requesting a fee, once we've got beyond the initial screen to see if the street meets the minimum criteria. I don't see us charging for someone to make the initial request when all we're going to do is spend 1/2 hour..... Bernie Dennis - You°re going to have to go out and do a speed zone survey, possibly an improvement plan-check for grade, trai�ic volume count, you're going to have to spend some time out in the field. Commissioner Sciarra- Aren°t you going to have all that information at your fingertips? Bernie Dennis -No. We don't normally have this type of data for 'residential' streets. It takes 2-3 hrs. for a traffic count; another 2-3 hrs. for a speed zone survey; so it could very quickly get into 20 man hours in this evaluation. Chuck Glass - If we fee for the initial request covering initial survey's to see if it meets minimum criteria for consideration, (non-refundable) then the street doesn't meet the requirements, do we say 'tough, but you can appeal to the City Council'? If it meets the criteria the fee then should probably cover the cost of preparing the petition and sending it back. I haven't seen any of the cities 'relating the request to accident history' as part of the criteria? Bernie Dennis- That doesn't do us any good because we're going to be out of the accident business. The Police Dept. is no longer taking accident reports unless there is an injury, or if it involves public property. This is the kiss of death for us, 2 years from now, during a CTC rr�eeting, a resident will get up and say there have been 15 accidents at this intersection, you will look over at us and ask if that's true, and we're going to say we don't have a clue. Chuck Glass - Worse yet, he will ask for installation of a traf�ic signal and you won't be able to base any warrants on accident history. Bernie Dennis -Everything we do, control wise, is predicated on accident records. 7 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 * Bernie Dennis (Tape @#42.60) -If there is a way to pre-plan it, it would really be trick to absolutely require approval of a property adjacent to where the hump is going to go. Chuck Glass - Assuming we get to the point where the request meets the criteria and we have a petition and it's now packaged on your agenda, one of the tlungs we should pinpoint is the design before it's presented for approvaUdenial. If this approved 'this is where it will go'. One of things I'm trying to avoid is, "yeah I want it approved, but I don°t want it in front of my house'. We could build into the fee the preliminary engineering and send out a sketch along with the petition to show the neighborhood where the bump would be installed. * Bernie Dennis (Tape @ #4783) - Another criteria that should be adopted is that the 'subject street' is not on the rehabilitation program or scheduled for reconstruction within 2 _ years of a probable installation of the hump. The Street Division maintains this list and that information is readily available during the initial requirement check. It would be embarrassing to spend $7,500 for the speed humps and then tear them out again so quickly. 3. Minimum Criteria Relative to Humq Placement - The laundry list to see if the street mentioned in the request meets these requirements is shown on the list provided by staff The review of this list of criteria was as follows: (Tape transcription began at #48.30 for these criteria,for reference to speci�c comments made during the discussion.) Speed Hump Spacing Speed Hump Height Recommended Number of Humps Hump Pro�mity to Street Lights Locations to Avoid Hump Proximity to Curved Roadways Hump Proximity to Property Lines Approach Visibility Hump Visibility Hump Proximity to Intersections Hump Proximity to STOP signs or Traffic Signals *Is The Street Scheduled for Rehabilitation or 1Zeconstruction Within 2 Yr. Period * Curb/gutter adjacent to hump placement must be in good condition, if not property owner must pay for repairs prior to installation. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by motion CONTINUE this item to it's next regular meeting. MOTION: D.Yarger SECOND: J.Fortier AYES: Unanimous � . CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 10, 1993 VI. ORAL PRESENTATIONS - BY COMMISSIONER'S Commissioner Hower -Announced that this would be his last CTC meeting as he will be moving to Arizona where he will take up permanent residence. He will subnut his letter of resignation to the Mayor. VII. ADJOURNMENT Discussion of all items before the City Traf�ic Commission being complete, and there being no further requests for action under Oral Presentation, Chairman Yarger adjourned - this session of the City Traf�ic Commission to it's next regular meeting scheduled for 7anuary 12, 1994. Time of Adjournment was 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Phyllis Then Recording Secretary File Name: November 9